This morning, Jamie Dukes went on NFL Network and spoke into a camera. Let’s put his words in print, just because:

“When you get to take the reps first, when you’re the first guy to step under center every day at practice, that means you’re the starter. But for some reason, those folks in the media room who see (Michael Vick) take the first snap every single day, they don’t get it.”

That would be an awesome point, if Michael Vick had actually taken “the first snap” every day.

I’m not the best journalist in the world. I’ll probably never win a Pulitzer, nor will I have high schools and awards named after me like Edward R. Murrow. However, I do have juuuuuust enough savvy to attend a practice, watch the first snap during 7-on-7′s or 11-on-11′s, and be able to tell if the player at QB is Michael Vick or Nick Foles. Sometimes it was Vick. Sometimes it was Foles.

Dukes’ segment on NFL is awful analysis of the highest order. He is basically just making up information, while simultaneously calling the entire media of a team idiots… when they’re there… and he’s not! There are two great things here:

Dukes is wrong, which is one thing, but he’s wrong while displaying such conviction, authority, and smarm.

It would have taken Dukes one freaking minute to Google the topic to get some facts. Go right ahead and click the Google logo below, which will demonstrate how easy it is:

Does anyone enjoy Jamie Dukes? That’s a serious question. Can anyone come up with any reason at all why Jamie Dukes should be looking into a camera and talking about the NFL, for money?

[...] “When you get to take the reps first, when you’re the first guy to step under center every day at practice, that means you’re the starter. But for some reason, those folks in the media room who see (Michael Vick) take the first snap every single day, they don’t get it,” said Dukes, via Blogging the Beast. [...]

I can’t stand commentators like Dukes. Neon used to be like that but he’s gotten better.

I actually like Keyshawn on ESPN quite a lot. He’s opinionated, he’s got the “showmanship” that Dukes and Sapp aspire to, but one never gets the sense that he’s making stuff up or talking about things he doesn’t understand.

i read something regarding a poll of sportscasters. apparently, people “trust” the ones who are confident in the information they give, not necessarily the ones who give the CORRECT information…
but now i can’t find a link to this so maybe i’m talking out my ass again.

This is the entire reason that people like Skip Bayless and Steven A. Smith are allowed to exist. They spout the most absurd nonsense but as long as they spout it with confidence they’ll get the ratings.

People don’t watch guys like hom to be informed, they watch guys like him to be amused. Amuse is a work which has a meaning: “muse” means “think.” Put an “A” at the front of the word and it means “not.” “Amused” means “not thinking” which you are not while enjoying watching someone like Dukes.
In short, you are being too hard on him. He is doing his job.

“Can anyone come up with any reason at all why Jamie Dukes should be looking into a camera and talking about the NFL, for money?”
Well, he gather views and attention for NFL Network for saying idiotic things (a post like this help support that claim). If you’re an exec of NFL Network who is only interested in making money, you’re not going to care for silly things like deep and factual analysis and will sellout to get the most views possible. The cheapest and easiest way for that is stupid/controversial “analysis” that get the most response.

I mean, why else would someone like Skip Bayless still own a job? It certainly isn’t for his brains or looks.